The Internet is a collection of computer networks from which users obtain and share information. The Internet has evolved from the ARPAnet to become the largest computer network in the world. The Internet supports various services. Of these services, the World Wide Web (the “Web”) and email are among the most widely used. Of these, the Web comprises a collection of hundreds of millions of documents (“Web pages”) written in mark up languages such as HTML, XML, and WML.
In Internet transmissions, Transaction Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (“TCP/IP”) is the communication standard. TCP/IP is a suite of protocols enabling communication between each node of the network. With the increasing bandwidth being offered by network carriers, not only data but also voice, audio and video are increasingly being transmitted through the network.
The evolution of the Internet continues and, in so doing, drives Internet-related product development, including in hardware, software and protocols. The Internet is extending in wireless communication and handheld devices. As an example, Internet-enabled cellular phones (such as smart and super phones) combine the features of cellular phones with the ability to access the Internet. As another example, certain personal digital assistants (“PDAs”) are directed to couple standard features with wireless access to the Internet. These phones, PDAs and other handheld devices exploit protocols such as, but not limited to, WAP, Web clipping, HDML or CHTML. Through these Internet-enabled devices, it is anticipated that users will not only place phone calls, organize their schedules and/or otherwise exploit the respective device's standard functionality, but also access the Internet for browsing the Web, obtaining information, communicating (e.g., via email) and the like. In so doing, it is also anticipated that the device's standard features and the Internet's benefits will both be enhanced.
The evolution of the Internet also implicates an evolution, if not revolution, in the infrastructure of communication networks. Today, people generally obtain personal access to the Internet by dialing up Internet service providers; the dial up may be carried for example over circuit-switched networks (“CSN”), typically via local telecommunications providers. In dial up, CSNs establish a physical circuit, which is dedicated exclusively to the call between the parties.
While generally available to users, CSNs appear to be in relative decline, being increasingly supplanted by packet-switched technologies. Packet-switched technologies significantly increase a network's speed and capacity. In packet-switched networks, traffic is digitized, compressed, and transported as packets. These networks enable the packets of a particular transmission to travel through various channels from source to destination. Moreover, these networks enable traffic in varied media types, including voice, audio, video, text, data and facsimile. In enabling the varied types, moreover, the networks may deploy technologies (e.g., ATM), which enable significant features, such as quality of service, wherein priorities are assigned to and among the media types (e.g., so that packets of voice communications arrive timely, thereby ensuring adequate fidelity for the conversation).
Packet-switched networks follow open standards. Accordingly, these networks enhance the ability of service providers to deploy new services, including high-bandwidth services for Internet use or otherwise (e.g., television programming and/or video on demand). By comparison, in circuit-switched networks, the call control functionality and the service logic tend to be buried within the switch. Moreover, the functionality generally is proprietary to the switch vendors. As such, new services generally are deployed at the discretion of the switch vendor, not the service providers. In addition to hardware, software, protocols and infra-structure, the evolution of the Internet also implicates development of new and improved services. Already, marketplaces on the Internet (i.e., virtual marketplaces) are well known and increasingly diverse in direction, content and business model. Ebay, Yahoo, E*Trade and Amazon are examples, each facilitating transactions, including the selling, buying and auctioning of merchandise and the provision of services, with and among enterprises and individuals. The merchandise and services comprise a wide variety, from books to automobiles, to stocks, to calendaring, that seems ever expanding in breadth.
Overcoming the geographic constraints of physical proximity, the Internet also introduces increasing and new opportunities for people to meet and interact with each other. Communities on the Internet (i.e., virtual communities) are well known and increasingly diverse in style, content and target participants. Virtual communities typically offer services and associated tools, such as chat rooms, email and Web publishing. Through these services and tools, virtual communities enable their participants to communicate, including to express their respective views, share common interest(s) and otherwise interact as if in the physical world, and increasingly in ways not available in the physical world.
Virtual marketplaces may facilitate the exchange or trading of ideas, knowledge and information between and among individuals and entities (sometimes referred to collectively herein as “participants”). These virtual marketplaces (“information marketplaces”) tend to have an express or implied premise, understanding or foundation: individuals and entities have one or more interests and/or areas of expertise that can or should be (a) shared with or provided to participants, (b) nurtured/advanced by interaction with participants, and/or (c) otherwise communicated to or with other participants for some derived benefit of either or both participants.
In an example of a transaction in a contemplated information marketplace, a participant (the “initiator”) posts a question, inquiry or view (“posting”) at a selected Web site of the marketplace. The initiator has the goal of obtaining one or more of answers, information, direction, responses or interaction (“response”) from or with one or more participants. The initiator may choose to direct the posting to selected participants (“experts”). The initiator preferably is enabled to select experts based on the experts' identified or claimed interest/expertise. The initiator may have identified interests and expertise. Indeed, the initiator may also be an expert in the marketplace and, conversely, the expert may also be an initiator in the marketplace.
A contemplated information marketplace preferably supports provision of the qualifications or characteristics of its experts, initiators and/or participants and may do so variously. In an example case, the marketplace publishes qualifications/characteristics (e.g., on Web sites or page(s)). The qualifications/characteristics may be mandated or voluntary, or a combination. The qualifications/characteristics may, particularly in the case of initiators, be selectable by the participant. The qualifications/characteristics may include various data, such as, among others, profile descriptions, transaction history (e.g., in the marketplace), ratings (e.g., marketplace, participant, expert and/or initiator provided), comments and reviews (e.g., marketplace, participant, expert and/or initiator provided), fee schedules or other forms of pricing. Profile descriptions may include, among other things, certifications (e.g., marketplace, professional, or governmental), specialties, sub-area(s) of interest/expertise, education, years of practice, awards, geographic location, and geographic scope or limitation on the interest/expertise. Profile descriptions may also include—particularly for initiators—qualifications or characteristics in the field of the posting, transaction history in the field of the posting, credit rating, age, education level, and geographic location.
Once an initiator selects one or more experts, a next step is to establish a communication link between the initiator and an expert for posting and response (an “information transaction”). A communication link may be variously provided, including via email, online chat and instant messaging. However, a drawback of email is that it relies on text communication (e.g., typing), with its attendant mechanical challenges. Another drawback of email is the time lag (“latency”) between sending an email and receiving a response. Yet another drawback of email is that it has a low level of interactivity and, as such, tends to be impersonal, ambiguous and inefficient in communication. Accordingly, email tends to hinder experts in providing a response, particularly one suited to and satisfying of the initiator's needs.
Online chat and instant messaging tend to be more interactive than email. Even so, each also again relies on text communication. Moreover, by their nature, chat and instant messaging tend to introduce an emphasis on speed in that text communication (e.g., fast typing). This emphasis generally is undesirable. Indeed, this emphasis can be a substantial hindrance for people either who are not familiar or adept with keyboards, who are physically excluded from keyboard use and/or whose written language is not based on Roman characters (e.g., those using symbol-based written languages, such as Chinese). Moreover, this emphasis may be specifically undesirable and the hindrance exacerbated in the context of an information instruction (e.g., initiators and/or experts in an information marketplace find the emphasis on rapid typing to be detrimental to an information instruction).
Given these drawbacks, a contemplated information marketplace preferably supplants or supplements email, online chat and instant messaging with other forms of Internet-based or Internet-related communication. Such forms of communication typically rely—at least in part—on voice communication. These forms include audio and/or audio/video conferencing, with or without text communication. These forms are desirable in their enhanced interactivity, reduced latency and de-emphasis on writing, particularly rapid writing. As such, these forms tend to provide more personal, direct, clear and efficient communication. These forms are simply more natural. Accordingly, these forms tend to be particularly desirable for initiators and experts alike in the context of an information marketplace.
Although voice communication tends to be more direct, efficient and otherwise desirable than e-mail, chat, and instant messaging, voice communication also tends to have some drawbacks. In particular, voice communication generally is subject to a lower level of anonymity (whether real or perceived) than is typically associated with each of email, chat and instant messaging.
Anonymity typically characterizes interaction and other communication via the Internet. For example, people are enabled to interact and otherwise communicate in cyber space without revealing much, if any, personal information, such as legal names or phone numbers.
Internet users tend to prefer anonymity for various reasons. As an example, an employee using the Internet to search for a new job desires anonymity so as to preclude any revelation of their identity to a current employer, supervisors and/or colleagues. As another example, an individual who has provided personal financial data to an online planner may desire anonymity so that the data is not associated with the individual's identity (such association potentially transforming the raw data into valuable information). As yet another example, members of Internet communities use various kinds of substitute names (e.g., aliases, nicknames or user names) in communicating with each other.
The shortfall of anonymity in voice communications—particularly conversations conducted via the standard telephone system—tends to introduce problems with privacy, particularly expectations of privacy. A common such problem is the receipt of unwanted phone calls. These unwanted calls can be annoying (e.g., telephone calls from tele-marketers), disturbing (e.g., contact from objectionable political organizations) and even frightening (e.g., intrusions from ostensibly dangerous individuals). Perhaps because voice communication is direct, unwanted calls tend to be difficult to terminate. Perhaps because telephone conversations are more personal, people tend not to fully block, automatically reject or otherwise absolutely deal with calls from unknown sources, which calls have a tendency to be unwanted but which could cause desirable or important calls to be missed (e.g., a friend of family member calling for emergency assistance).
Based at least in part on concerns about unwanted calls, people remain reluctant to disclose their phone numbers, particularly their home telephone and personal cellular numbers. This reluctance also tends to reflect, at least in part, the perception that phone numbers enable the recipients to more readily discover personal information about the person that disclosed the number, such as name and physical address. This reluctance also tends to result in slow acceptance and lesser use among Internet users of voice communication (i.e., as compared to email, chat and instant messaging), whether such communication is Internet-based or Internet-related (e.g., via standard telephone service (also known as the plain old telephone system (“POTS”)), but initiated by or in connection with Internet services).
It is desirable, then, to integrate voice communication and anonymity. An example of such integration may be illustrated in the context of an information marketplace. There, an initiator determines to conduct an information instruction with a selected expert via voice communication. To do so, the initiator submits a request for voice communication with the selected expert, the submission being through the Internet to the operator or other infrastructure of the information marketplace (or other service or system that supports linking by voice communication). The marketplace contacts the selected expert. The contact may be via (a) the Internet, so as to support voice communication as voice over Internet protocol (“VoIP”) or (b) telephone service. In either case, if the contact results in establishing a voice communication link with the expert, the marketplace maintains that link (e.g., puts the expert on hold) while establishing voice connection with the initiator before connecting the expert and the initiator. The marketplace makes that connection, in one case, by linking the initiator and the expert over the Internet, with the marketplace either interposed in the transmission of packets or enabling direct transmission. In another case, the marketplace bridges between the initiator communicating over the Internet (e.g., VoIP) and the expert communicating via standard telephony. In yet another case, the marketplace connects by contacting the initiator by telephone and, once the initiator is on the line, connecting the initiator with the expert who is also linked by telephone. In each and any case, a connection is made and voice communication is enabled, characterized by enhanced support for anonymity.
Integration of anonymity and voice communication in this form tends to have shortfalls. One of the shortfalls is that a party may be contacted, without advance notice and at any time by the marketplace, responsive to any initiator's request. That scope of contact tends to deprive the contacted party of control over their respective schedules, which in turn, tends to degrade productivity and efficiency in their work and to reduce the quality of their personal time. Indeed, without advance notice of calls in an information marketplace, an expert may be induced to keep the telephone proximate at all times, so as to either take calls in interruption of other work or play and/or to forestall work or play in anticipation of calls (e.g., calls that might never arise). This tends to have enhanced relevance in the commercial or professional context, wherein the expert seeks to provide high quality and highly responsive service to clients (e.g., initiators) so as to, among other things, keep clients satisfied and otherwise happy with the provided services (e.g., to avoid unanswered calls).
One solution to this shortfall is to support specified times and/or time range(s) during which a party (e.g., an expert of an information marketplace) is committed to be available for receipt of calls from the information marketplace. In the information marketplace, these times and ranges are office hours. During an expert's office hours, the expert commits, or even guarantees, to be present to receive calls from the marketplace. At the same time, the expert benefits by enhanced knowledge of and personal control over, when such calls, if any, may arise.
This solution, however, also has shortfalls. In the information marketplace, one shortfall is its tendency to reduce, from an already finite number of experts available via the marketplace, the number of experts actually available at any given time. That is, at any given time, it is to be expected that, via the marketplace, less than all of the experts are within their office hours. Moreover, even if a particular expert is within their office hours, a reduced supply of experts will tend to reduce the frequency at which requests result in a connection (e.g., the expert will have an increased chance of being busy with another, earlier initiator).
Another shortfall is that the initiator will generally attempt to contact the expert promptly, if not immediately or substantially immediately, after indicating interest in contact, and this might not be convenient for the expert even if the initiator attempts to make contact within the expert's office hours.
As another example, a service or system supporting integration may assign individuals and entities respective user codes, each of which uniquely identifies the particular user. To support such codes, the service/system stores the codes, e.g., in one or more databases. Preferably, the service/system associates the codes with the telephone number and/or contact information of the respective individuals and entities.
The service/system may use the user codes variously. For example, in a virtual chat room context, the service/system may enable participants to place an advertisement (e.g., in a publication, such as a physical or virtual magazine) carrying the telephone number of the marketplace and citing the user code. In that circumstance, an observer of the advertisement may contact the participant by placing a telephone call to the marketplace and entering the user code. The service/system then establishes the communication link to the participant, e.g., by placing the observer on hold, retrieving the participant's telephone number by association with the user code, contacting the participant and, once the participant is contacted and found to be available, connecting the participant with the calling observer. In this manner, the observer does not know the actual phone number of the participant, thus preserving the participant's anonymity.
This design is suitable for chat rooms where participants talk to each other casually, and the system only needs to identify different participants. However, user code is not sufficient to identify and describe different transactions having different transaction specifications and connection criteria among participants, as in the context of an information marketplace where participants buy and sell information.
As still another example, a service or system supporting integration of anonymity and voice communication may assign each user a contact code, the contact code identifying each user as a party to a scheduled voice communication. The contact code may be one or more groups of alphanumeric characters (e.g., if the contact code comprises a call code and password, it may be provided as one or two numbers). In supporting contact codes, the service/system enables the parties to place separate telephone calls (through the public switched telephone network or via the Internet) to the service/system (or related infrastructure) at a scheduled time. Upon connection with the service/system, each party enters their respective contact codes (e.g., through their telephone keypads). The service/system compares the contact codes entered by the parties and connects the telephone calls if the contact codes are proper (e.g., the codes must either match exactly or match in accordance with predetermined criteria).
Yet another example is an extension of the contact code feature. In this case, the service/system creates, after the first successful connection between two parties, a record indicative of these two parties and/or of the connection. Based on that record, the service/system may be configured to connect either party to the other when, in the future, one party dials into the system and inputs their contact code. That is, the service/system places a call to the non-calling party, rather than requiring the non-calling party to dial in. In such case, the service/system may be configured to support (a) provision of information to the called party about the calling party, e.g., upon the service/system contacting the called party, (b) a request that the called party enter their contact code, (c) a combination of these. The service/system may be configured so that either or both parties may elect in or out of this feature.
In addition to the shortfall of using user code, this method requires participants placing separate phone calls to the service/system at the same time.